Little help calling stations

[Molson]

Ok im trying to build a bank role i have around $140 and playing sit n go at $3. the trouble i have is everyone keeps calling my bet to the river. i have the nuts maybe to the turn so raising when i should be. except players are calling with hands far to week and hitting the river. what is the best play against these players should i not bet into them and just call when they bet into me.

[ProPoker2006]

Well, if you have the nuts on the turn and theres a reasonably good chance like a flush it will hit on the river..then a large raise is necessary to chase him out...he will most definitley call a small raise,...who wouldn't. So do a large raise and win there and then...but you will meet beginners who call all-ins with a flush draw and miraculously and unfortunelty hit it and win....an experienced player will normally fold to a large raise but if his stack is big he probably will risk it..... raising large is the correct move.

[cambraceres]

The problem you have is not a problem. If players are calling your bets with worse hands then you are playing correctly, period. If you are ahead by any margin when your money goes in, then you are playing poker well.

Remember the fundamental theorem of poker, it states that any time your opponent plays his/her cards differently than he/she would if they could see your cards, then you profit. So if a person is calling you on any street, especially late streets, with a hand that is not as good as yours, then you profit.

Your last question is one that can't be answered without lots of specific information including villain tendencies, stack sizes, specific action, and position. To bet or not to bet is more of a question than you may believe.

Cam

[Molson]

Thanks for your reply :-) widens my knowledge of the game yet again

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, if you have the nuts on the turn and theres a reasonably good chance like a flush it will hit on the river..then a large raise is necessary to chase him out...



[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa! Sounds like we're going down the wrong path here. YOU DON'T WANT TO CHASE DRAWS OUT. YOU WANT TO GIVE THEM IMPROPER ODDS TO DRAW, BUT STILL HAVE THEM CALL ANYWAY. This is a very important point misunderstood by many otherwise solid NL players. Those who don't understand it are losing expectation every time they chase out a draw that would have called with the wrong odds. I'd advise rereading the NLHE material in GSIH. (Cambraceres' post above is also good.)

Now, when denying your opponent the odds to make a draw, you need to consider the implied odds you're laying. For example, if you can put her on exactly a flush draw, and you can reduce her odds to 3.5:1, that would be fine -- providing you don't plan to pay off a bet if the flush comes in! But in tough NL games always folding to a third suited card and a bet will make you too bluffable. At any rate, the point is if you're going to pay off a modest river bet, you will need to deny the flush enough implied odds to be profitable. (But you're not sure you're against a flush draw, so at that point things get more complicated.)

Pushing people off of their drawing hands is a great way to maximize the number of pots you win. Unfortunately the object of poker isn't to maximize the number of pots you win, but rather the money you win. You can't cash those "pots" out at the cage or into your Neteller account.

[Johnny Holdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, if you have the nuts on the turn and theres a reasonably good chance like a flush it will hit on the river..then a large raise is necessary to chase him out...



[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa! Sounds like we're going down the wrong path here. YOU DON'T WANT TO CHASE DRAWS OUT. YOU WANT TO GIVE THEM IMPROPER ODDS TO DRAW, BUT STILL HAVE THEM CALL ANYWAY. This is a very important point misunderstood by many otherwise solid NL players. Those who don't understand it are losing expectation every time they chase out a draw that would have called with the wrong odds. I'd advise rereading the NLHE material in GSIH. (Cambraceres' post above is also good.)

Now, when denying your opponent the odds to make a draw, you need to consider the implied odds you're laying. For example, if you can put her on exactly a flush draw, and you can reduce her odds to 3.5:1, that would be fine -- providing you don't plan to pay off a bet if the flush comes in! But in tough NL games always folding to a third suited card and a bet will make you too bluffable. At any rate, the point is if you're going to pay off a modest river bet, you will need to deny the flush enough implied odds to be profitable. (But you're not sure you're against a flush draw, so at that point things get more complicated.)

Pushing people off of their drawing hands is a great way to maximize the number of pots you win. Unfortunately the object of poker isn't to maximize the number of pots you win, but rather the money you win. You can't cash those "pots" out at the cage or into your Neteller account.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is excellent advice. So good that I went to B&N just now to read that part where Ed discusses this. (lent my copy to a friend).

I think this is one thing that was missing from my game. Not focusing on the money but rather the pot. I get so scared of opponents calling and sucking out on me that I will usually bet to take the pot down right away.

Thanks AKQJ10.

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember the fundamental theorem of poker, it states that any time your opponent plays his/her cards differently than he/she would if they could see your cards, then you profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eureka!! I can now prove what many people have long ranted about. Low limit players are so bad that the games are hard to win money at. Poor players often don't make mistakes according to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker. You could often turn your hand up on the turn and show them your TPTK and they'd still call an even money bet with a flush draw. Thus they're SOOOO BAD that they don't make a mistake according to the FUNDAMENTAL theorem of poker. Thus your opponents become good and low limits are unbeatable (or next to it). QED

[AKQJ10]

Haha... good point, but probably not what Sklansky was getting at.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Thus your opponents become good and low limits are unbeatable (or next to it).

[/ QUOTE ]

This has gotta be a joke.

But if it isn't...

[ QUOTE ]
Low limit players are so bad that the games are hard to win money at. Poor players often don't make mistakes according to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not hard to win money against poor players. The thing that's tough is overcoming the rake if it's big enough in relation to the limit.

The mistakes they make are usually preflop along with total effective odds throughout the hand. Sure, they may be calling correctly on the turn given the pot odds, but look at how much they put in to get to that point. It's unlikely that they're getting the return on their investment overall in the hand to cover the odds against them winning. Which means, even though they win the pot, they lose in the longrun.

b

[kazana]

[ QUOTE ]
Poor players often don't make mistakes according to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker. You could often turn your hand up on the turn and show them your TPTK and they'd still call an even money bet with a flush draw.

[/ QUOTE ]
Heheheh, lovely conclusion. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

As far as I'm concerned, what Sklansky meant was that if players knew your cards AND played correct poker with that knowledge.

And if I'm wrong, I'd advise to push every single hand or if someone beats you to it, call every all-in. No matter whether you see villain's hole cards or not. You'd be unbeatable. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Edit: Wrong author - corrected